This is very interesting indeed. Dell is doing relatively well financially, and yet they are making pre-emptive changes in response to the shifting markets, rather than waiting until 5 minutes to midnight.

Full circle. Once upon a time only computer nerds had a computer. Then everyone got a computer which propelled the Dells of the world into becoming Fortune 500 companies. What the users didn't know, or didn't want to know, is that their computer was not an appliance but rather a very powerful tool and at the same time very delicate one and easy to screw up. Too easy. So now that they can obtain a computing appliance, the users are dumping computers and buying appliances (tablets) by the millions. The tablets aren't so easy to screw up, and when they are it's obvious. Don't drop it and don't spill anything on it, and it will run just fine. Pretty soon only nerds will have computers again. At least at home. There's no running a business without a PC, for now. That may change too, and may change overnight just like the tablet revolution happened overnight when the first iPad came out.

It's an obvious benefit to Microsoft. They get to keep reminding Dell that Windows should be their future, and if something happens that forces Dell another way to stay profitable/viable, Microsoft gains anyway. Kinda like how they're making money off Android licensing.

I think at this point, Microsoft's motivation has more to do with its aspirations in the hardware business than any sort of protectionist strategy for its software business.

If Microsoft wants Surface to become a large-scale brand, it will need the kind of expertise in supply-chain and build-to-order that Dell has. MS knows how to make one-size-fits-all devices like Surface or Zune or Xbox. It doesn't know how to make highly personalized commodity products like PCs, which is what the Surface range would have to become to achieve significant market penetration.

This is very interesting indeed. Dell is doing relatively well financially, and yet they are making pre-emptive changes in response to the shifting markets, rather than waiting until 5 minutes to midnight.

Full circle. Once upon a time only computer nerds had a computer. Then everyone got a computer. What the users didn't know, or didn't want to know, is that their computer was not an appliance but rather a very powerful tool and at the same time very delicate one and easy to screw up. Too easy. So now the users are dumping computers and buying appliances (tablets) by the millions. The tablets aren't so easy to screw up, and when you do it's obvious. (Hint: don't drop it and don't spill anything on it!) Pretty soon only nerds will have computers again. At least at home. There's no running a business without a PC, for now. That may change too, and may change overnight just like the tablet revolution happened overnight when the first iPad came out.

Very interesting.

I'm sure it won't be as clear cut, but it's definitely interesting. There's also a certain tabletification that's being pushed in the heels of Windows 8... phones are more tablet-like than phone-like, and everyone wants to push the PC to be something specific instead of being a broad tool (a Steam box, a tablet, a media center...)

I think at this point, Microsoft's motivation has more to do with its aspirations in the hardware business than any sort of protectionist strategy for its software business.

If Microsoft wants Surface to become a large-scale brand, it will need the kind of expertise in supply-chain and build-to-order that Dell has. MS knows how to make one-size-fits-all devices like Surface or Zune or Xbox. It doesn't know how to make highly personalized commodity products like PCs, which is what the Surface range would have to become to achieve significant market penetration.

I like this idea. This is the best way to make sense of Dell's recent moves. It explains why Dell would get so bold all of a sudden after decades of doing one thing well. It explains why Microsoft would be involved when Dell was rumoured to be moving away from the traditional PC business.

MS would get a way to make hardware indirectly without alienating PC OEMs as much as Surface and xbox does, plus, it gives MSFT access to hardware people that actually know what they're doing. Plus they get access to the experience with physical retail goods that MS lacks. Given their serious push for Surface, it makes more sense than acquiring Nokia would.

I think at this point, Microsoft's motivation has more to do with its aspirations in the hardware business than any sort of protectionist strategy for its software business.

If Microsoft wants Surface to become a large-scale brand, it will need the kind of expertise in supply-chain and build-to-order that Dell has. MS knows how to make one-size-fits-all devices like Surface or Zune or Xbox. It doesn't know how to make highly personalized commodity products like PCs, which is what the Surface range would have to become to achieve significant market penetration.

Your post doesn't make sense.

You cannot have a highly personalized commodity; it stops being commodity the minute it is personalized.

Apple, as the counterpoint, makes one-size-fits-all devices like the iPad, which is what the Surface wants to be, and you don't need personalization for that.

What you need, and that Dell has, is international destribution and retail. Surface is limited to US and a handful of countries and retailers. iPad is available in over 140 countries and in hundreds of retailers.

I see this as a move akin to the investment/partnership with Nokia. If they set up Dell as the Microsoft PC 'house brand' then they can ensure that there are well built, well spec'd PCs able to run Windows and Microsoft software. Then they wouldn't have to become a hardware vendor themselves. I don't know if $1-3 billion buys them that, but it would be consistant with their phone hardware approach.

Hopefully they encourage Dell to make a less personalized, and high quality PC rather than just crank out 13 models with endless options at people.

This is very interesting indeed. Dell is doing relatively well financially, and yet they are making pre-emptive changes in response to the shifting markets, rather than waiting until 5 minutes to midnight.

Full circle. Once upon a time only computer nerds had a computer. Then everyone got a computer which propelled the Dells of the world into becoming Fortune 500 companies. What the users didn't know, or didn't want to know, is that their computer was not an appliance but rather a very powerful tool and at the same time very delicate one and easy to screw up. Too easy. So now that they can obtain a computing appliance, the users are dumping computers and buying appliances (tablets) by the millions. The tablets aren't so easy to screw up, and when they are it's obvious. Don't drop it and don't spill anything on it, and it will run just fine. Pretty soon only nerds will have computers again. At least at home. There's no running a business without a PC, for now. That may change too, and may change overnight just like the tablet revolution happened overnight when the first iPad came out.

Very interesting.

Some truth in this. Mainly on the part about appliances. People like convenience. Look at the thousands of different kitchen appliances. They also pay for simplified/ease of use. 1 touch solutions. Part of the reason the iPhone took off was because you had two options. Press something on the screen or the home button. That's it. No one wants to know about what they are using. They just want it to work.

But computers aren't going anyway. The average computer is just getting smaller. Size only has a direct proportionality to power that floats along side of Moore's Law. The digital age was ushered in with the birth of computers and has already permanently ingrained itself into society. There is no going back as a society. Only the personal choice to opt out.

Doesn't this go against the principle of going private to keep Wall Street from dictating what Dell could do? All this will mean is that it'll be Microsoft instead of Wall Street. Also with Dell owning Perot Systems Microsoft could gain in that space.

Wasn't Apple on the verge of ruin when MSFT bought that stock in '97? Sounds like an angel investment/ bail out between old friends to me. Then for Jobs to turn around and bite the hand a few years later. Sucks.

Dell is a HUGE MSFT partner so this makes logical sense for them to be more than an interested party. Uncertain yet what will happen but seems like this should be the goal of any public US company. Enter the market to raise capital and grow your business, once you've reached a comfortable level, buy yourself out and return to private status. No shareholders to please, no public scrutiny, no roller coaster market to deal with.

I think at this point, Microsoft's motivation has more to do with its aspirations in the hardware business than any sort of protectionist strategy for its software business.

If Microsoft wants Surface to become a large-scale brand, it will need the kind of expertise in supply-chain and build-to-order that Dell has. MS knows how to make one-size-fits-all devices like Surface or Zune or Xbox. It doesn't know how to make highly personalized commodity products like PCs, which is what the Surface range would have to become to achieve significant market penetration.

Your post doesn't make sense.

You cannot have a highly personalized commodity; it stops being commodity the minute it is personalized.

By "personalized", I mean "build-to-order", in the sense of a Subway sandwich. Sorry, I could have made that clearer.

Doesn't this go against the principle of going private to keep Wall Street from dictating what Dell could do? All this will mean is that it'll be Microsoft instead of Wall Street. Also with Dell owning Perot Systems Microsoft could gain in that space.

4-5% ownership wouldn't give Microsoft any ability to "dictate" anything to anyone. All it will do is give them a seat at the table, which is probably all they want.

I think at this point, Microsoft's motivation has more to do with its aspirations in the hardware business than any sort of protectionist strategy for its software business.

If Microsoft wants Surface to become a large-scale brand, it will need the kind of expertise in supply-chain and build-to-order that Dell has. MS knows how to make one-size-fits-all devices like Surface or Zune or Xbox. It doesn't know how to make highly personalized commodity products like PCs, which is what the Surface range would have to become to achieve significant market penetration.

Your post doesn't make sense.

You cannot have a highly personalized commodity; it stops being commodity the minute it is personalized.

By "personalized", I mean "build-to-order", in the sense of a Subway sandwich. Sorry, I could have made that clearer.

Your post still doesn't make sense because the logic fails if BTO is crucial to the success of the Surface product line.

Apple's iPad, iPod touch, iPhone, and Apple TV are successful without BTO. You get 2 variants, possibly 4 or 5 colors, and 3 storage sizes, but zero BTO. If Surface is to succeed, it needs worldwide distribution and competitive HW, which it has neither at this point. Dell can solve the worldwide distribution, at least.

Wasn't Apple on the verge of ruin when MSFT bought that stock in '97? Sounds like an angel investment/ bail out between old friends to me. Then for Jobs to turn around and bite the hand a few years later. Sucks.

Apple hardly bites the hand. Microsoft and Apple have a surprisingly close business relationship, despite any good-natured ribbing that might go on between the two companies in commercials.

Your post still doesn't make sense because the logic fails if BTO is crucial to the success of the Surface product line.

Apple's iPad, iPod touch, iPhone, and Apple TV are successful without BTO. You get 2 variants, possibly 4 or 5 colors, and 3 storage sizes, but zero BTO. If Surface is to succeed, it needs worldwide distribution and competitive HW, which it has neither at this point. Dell can solve the worldwide distribution, at least.

Apple competes in its own market where it can succeed with a limited, focused range of models and colors. Surface, OTOH, will compete in a market where competitors like Lenovo and ASUS will have a dizzying array of products to hit every conceivable price point. Microsoft will need the flexibility to create a range of products in a similar fashion.

Put it this way; after releasing Surface, it will take Microsoft almost 4 months to release Surface Pro. With Dell's expertise, they would probably have been able to get both models out the door at the same time.

The phone and the tablet are the new Personal Computers. Dell was in the desktop and laptop PC business, then the definition of the "PC" changed. They tried to get into the phone business but it didn't work out. Now I think its too late. I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite Sci-Fi books...

I find it interesting that companies are going private to get off the stock exchanges for breathing room. It allows them to run their company with vision and not be victim to the mob rule of "investors". It also keeps the public out of the board room.

I think its a brilliant strategy. Go Private, reinvent yourself and then reenter the market in a stronger position. If not you die quietly... either way no one should complain.

Wasn't Apple on the verge of ruin when MSFT bought that stock in '97? Sounds like an angel investment/ bail out between old friends to me. Then for Jobs to turn around and bite the hand a few years later. Sucks.

Apple was in dire straits, strategy-wise, but was far from desperate for cash - they had over $1billion in the bank I vaguely recall. The $150 million in stock was part of a settlement between Apple and Microsoft over legal suits, and the more important part of the deal was an agreement for Microsoft to keep developing Office on the Mac (no real loss, they were needing to fend off the DoJ at the time, and Mac Business Unit runs at a profit), and for IE to become the MacOS browser as shipped - no loss for Apple either as IE 5.0/5.1/5.2 for MacOS 9 and X were the best browsers for the platform at the time.

Microsoft later sold their stock for a tidy profit too, though not as large as it could have been. They're no longer investors I believe.

The phone and the tablet are the new Personal Computers. Dell was in the desktop and laptop PC business, then the definition of the "PC" changed. They tried to get into the phone business but it didn't work out. Now I think its too late. I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite Sci-Fi books...

"They tried and failed?"

"No, they tried and died."

I disagree. I dont think the phone and tablet are the new Personal Computers. they are just internet gateways. Sure they are great for the road warrior, or one whose job is coordination and networking. However, they have a ways to go before they replace a machine designed to create content. I think they will get there but the death of the PC is exaggerated. I think we need to do a better job of defining what a PC is.

So yes the big box under the desk..its days are numbered for 90% of the people out there. However the concept of the personal computer, an open system that allows you to write software to create products and services. That is not going anywhere. These appliances are just a short term novelty. Once the upgrade cycle starts rolling again, I think people will demand a product that allows them to do everything a PC does in a smartphone/tablet form factor. Otherwise the tablet/smartphone will be doomed as a 2nd device. For that I think Microsoft has the right strategy with windows 8. And I bet we will see Apple move IOS in that direction if not...I think we can start talking about their death.

My viewpoint is skewed because I am an engineer and I could never do my job on a smartphone / tablet. The user experience of smart phone is just not designed to do those tasks. However I could do my coordination and networking on a tablet/smartphone. To be fair. I could do my job on a tablet, but software with decades of pedigree would need to be rewritten to utilize the user interfaces of the tablet/smartphone and not the mouse and keyboard. Otherwise I would need a dock. Its why I think Windows 8 will eventually be successful. I think its foolish for a Microsoft/Google/Apple to think software will adapt to them. Especially when companies have invested massive sums of money and time into developing complex products that run on traditional PC paradigms. I think the first vendor that allows companies to get more out of their investment and migrate efficiently to these new paradigms will win.

Wasn't Apple on the verge of ruin when MSFT bought that stock in '97? Sounds like an angel investment/ bail out between old friends to me. Then for Jobs to turn around and bite the hand a few years later. Sucks.

Apple was in dire straits, strategy-wise, but was far from desperate for cash - they had over $1billion in the bank I vaguely recall. The $150 million in stock was part of a settlement between Apple and Microsoft over legal suits, and the more important part of the deal was an agreement for Microsoft to keep developing Office on the Mac (no real loss, they were needing to fend off the DoJ at the time, and Mac Business Unit runs at a profit), and for IE to become the MacOS browser as shipped - no loss for Apple either as IE 5.0/5.1/5.2 for MacOS 9 and X were the best browsers for the platform at the time.

Microsoft later sold their stock for a tidy profit too, though not as large as it could have been. They're no longer investors I believe.

Exactly. My brain bleeds every time I read some comment about how Microsoft saved Apple.

I recall that Microsoft and Apple agreed to wrap up a bunch of legal cases (notably the QuickTime suit), start cross-licencing and be nicer to each other, and Microsoft made restitution with $150M and agreement to make IE (the best browser at the time) and Office for at least five more years. Office was the real win there. Apple didn't need the money as much as it needed the commitment on Office. Microsoft did very well out of the deal. They sold the stock later for a tidy profit (though not as much as they might've realised today) and Office for the Mac is a very profitable line for them.

This is very interesting indeed. Dell is doing relatively well financially, and yet they are making pre-emptive changes in response to the shifting markets, rather than waiting until 5 minutes to midnight.

Full circle. Once upon a time only computer nerds had a computer. Then everyone got a computer which propelled the Dells of the world into becoming Fortune 500 companies. What the users didn't know, or didn't want to know, is that their computer was not an appliance but rather a very powerful tool and at the same time very delicate one and easy to screw up. Too easy. So now that they can obtain a computing appliance, the users are dumping computers and buying appliances (tablets) by the millions. The tablets aren't so easy to screw up, and when they are it's obvious. Don't drop it and don't spill anything on it, and it will run just fine. Pretty soon only nerds will have computers again. At least at home. There's no running a business without a PC, for now. That may change too, and may change overnight just like the tablet revolution happened overnight when the first iPad came out.

Very interesting.

Tablets and phones are experiencing the same explosive growth PCs experienced 10-15 years ago. However, if users were "dumping computers and buying appliances" one would see a drop in PC sales. What we're seeing is a deceleration of PC sales not a drop of ownership. PCs (all kinds, all brands) are so affordable that having one or two around the house and office, complementing tablets, not competing against them is probably more common than owning only a phone or tablet.

No one knows for certain what computing will look like in 2020 but one can guess that all form factors will continue to evolve filling all available niches and creating new ones. Tablets will have all the accoutrements that they lack today, turning them into de facto PCs and blurring their differences. If this is the case, the winner of this competition will be he who has an OS covering the most form factors. Currently the competition is between Windows and of the Unix brethren. Same as 10 years ago and very likely the same 10 years from now.

Wasn't Apple on the verge of ruin when MSFT bought that stock in '97? Sounds like an angel investment/ bail out between old friends to me. Then for Jobs to turn around and bite the hand a few years later. Sucks.

As I recall it, yes that was the case, and I'm pretty sure Microsoft doubled their money on that one. They probably only did it to make sure they didn't go under and then get hit even harder for being a real monopoly though.

Your post still doesn't make sense because the logic fails if BTO is crucial to the success of the Surface product line.

Apple's iPad, iPod touch, iPhone, and Apple TV are successful without BTO. You get 2 variants, possibly 4 or 5 colors, and 3 storage sizes, but zero BTO. If Surface is to succeed, it needs worldwide distribution and competitive HW, which it has neither at this point. Dell can solve the worldwide distribution, at least.

Apple competes in its own market where it can succeed with a limited, focused range of models and colors. Surface, OTOH, will compete in a market where competitors like Lenovo and ASUS will have a dizzying array of products to hit every conceivable price point. Microsoft will need the flexibility to create a range of products in a similar fashion.

Put it this way; after releasing Surface, it will take Microsoft almost 4 months to release Surface Pro. With Dell's expertise, they would probably have been able to get both models out the door at the same time.

You wouldn't say that Apple is competing against Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, Sony and others? There are smartphones and tablets of all shapes and sizes, at many price points. Apple definitely does not have any market to themselves, even if it has seemed that way with tablets.

The way I see the story is that Dell is one of the critical suppliers to business, and Microsoft sells the licences on the hardware that Dell sells. They want a strong Dell, to ensure stability in their own market.

There are most likely other benefits, such as your point about Surface, but mostly I think they want a strong Dell.

Wasn't Apple on the verge of ruin when MSFT bought that stock in '97? Sounds like an angel investment/ bail out between old friends to me. Then for Jobs to turn around and bite the hand a few years later. Sucks.

Apple was in dire straits, strategy-wise, but was far from desperate for cash - they had over $1billion in the bank I vaguely recall. The $150 million in stock was part of a settlement between Apple and Microsoft over legal suits, and the more important part of the deal was an agreement for Microsoft to keep developing Office on the Mac (no real loss, they were needing to fend off the DoJ at the time, and Mac Business Unit runs at a profit), and for IE to become the MacOS browser as shipped - no loss for Apple either as IE 5.0/5.1/5.2 for MacOS 9 and X were the best browsers for the platform at the time.

Microsoft later sold their stock for a tidy profit too, though not as large as it could have been. They're no longer investors I believe.

Exactly. My brain bleeds every time I read some comment about how Microsoft saved Apple.

I recall that Microsoft and Apple agreed to wrap up a bunch of legal cases (notably the QuickTime suit), start cross-licencing and be nicer to each other, and Microsoft made restitution with $150M and agreement to make IE (the best browser at the time) and Office for at least five more years. Office was the real win there. Apple didn't need the money as much as it needed the commitment on Office. Microsoft did very well out of the deal. They sold the stock later for a tidy profit (though not as much as they might've realised today) and Office for the Mac is a very profitable line for them.

Sorry, a bit off-topic there.

However you want to spin it, MS DID save Apple. Had MS chose not to settle and continued to drag the court case, stop developing Office for Mac, Apple wouldn't have survived. Even Steve Jobs agreed.

Buying $150M in stock is not "restitution" in any way, shape or form. If they had just handed over the cash, you might have a point. Typically, restitution is to make a wronged party whole. You don't get anything in return, especially an ownership stake.

You wouldn't say that Apple is competing against Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, Sony and others?

Not entirely. Apple is the only company that makes iOS devices. Microsoft is not the only company that makes Windows tablets. I do think there is a significant market distinction between iOS devices and Windows devices.

The phone and the tablet are the new Personal Computers. Dell was in the desktop and laptop PC business, then the definition of the "PC" changed. They tried to get into the phone business but it didn't work out. Now I think its too late. I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite Sci-Fi books...

"They tried and failed?"

"No, they tried and died."

I disagree. I dont think the phone and tablet are the new Personal Computers. they are just internet gateways. Sure they are great for the road warrior, or one whose job is coordination and networking. However, they have a ways to go before they replace a machine designed to create content. I think they will get there but the death of the PC is exaggerated. I think we need to do a better job of defining what a PC is.

I like how you contradict yourself in the span of three sentences.

Quote:

So yes the big box under the desk..its days are numbered for 90% of the people out there.

So if 90% of people don't need a PC, then 90% of PCs are dead, ergo PCs dying isn't exaggerated?

Quote:

However the concept of the personal computer, an open system that allows you to write software to create products and services. That is not going anywhere.

Of course not, but the people who need to create software and products and services are the same people who need a workstation, today, and who make up a fractionally small portion of the market.

Quote:

These appliances are just a short term novelty. Once the upgrade cycle starts rolling again, I think people will demand a product that allows them to do everything a PC does in a smartphone/tablet form factor. Otherwise the tablet/smartphone will be doomed as a 2nd device. For that I think Microsoft has the right strategy with windows 8. And I bet we will see Apple move IOS in that direction if not...I think we can start talking about their death.

You are years out of date. Apple has been moving in that direction for years now. They added keyboard, multitasking, screen spanning, printing, apps, games, and have standardized third party HW extensions since 2007.

The only things still missing at this point is multiple user support.

Quote:

My viewpoint is skewed because I am an engineer and I could never do my job on a smartphone / tablet.

And of course your viewpoint is skewed because 90% of the population aren't engineers.

Quote:

The user experience of smart phone is just not designed to do those tasks. However I could do my coordination and networking on a tablet/smartphone. To be fair. I could do my job on a tablet, but software with decades of pedigree would need to be rewritten to utilize the user interfaces of the tablet/smartphone and not the mouse and keyboard. Otherwise I would need a dock. Its why I think Windows 8 will eventually be successful.

I think Windows 8 is awesome, but without appropriate HW it won't be successful, which is why a Dell partnership makes sense.

Quote:

I think its foolish for a Microsoft/Google/Apple to think software will adapt to them. Especially when companies have invested massive sums of money and time into developing complex products that run on traditional PC paradigms. I think the first vendor that allows companies to get more out of their investment and migrate efficiently to these new paradigms will win.

You mean Apple?

Because they use the exact same code, APIs, infrastructure, and libraries to write Mac apps as you write iOS apps, and this has been true since 2008. You can create, today, a fat binary that runs on both iPad and iPhone, and test it on an x86 Mac. I'm fairly certain that within the year you will be able to create a universal binary that runs on the iPad, iPhone, and Mac.

Microsoft didn't get this capability until 2012 when WP8, Windows RT, and Windows 8 all used the same kernel, and even then the userspace has yet to be harmonized (to my understanding).

This is very interesting indeed. Dell is doing relatively well financially, and yet they are making pre-emptive changes in response to the shifting markets, rather than waiting until 5 minutes to midnight.

Full circle. Once upon a time only computer nerds had a computer. Then everyone got a computer which propelled the Dells of the world into becoming Fortune 500 companies. What the users didn't know, or didn't want to know, is that their computer was not an appliance but rather a very powerful tool and at the same time very delicate one and easy to screw up. Too easy. So now that they can obtain a computing appliance, the users are dumping computers and buying appliances (tablets) by the millions. The tablets aren't so easy to screw up, and when they are it's obvious. Don't drop it and don't spill anything on it, and it will run just fine. Pretty soon only nerds will have computers again. At least at home. There's no running a business without a PC, for now. That may change too, and may change overnight just like the tablet revolution happened overnight when the first iPad came out.

Very interesting.

I disagree, actually.

The problem is actually fairly simple. Tablets? Suck.

This shocks a lot of people. "But they sell so well!" "Look at how important they are!"

The problem is that tablet sales are, at the moment, exaggerated. Cheap tablets have not been available for very long, though tablets have actually been around since the mid 1990s. The problem is that they really are a bit crap. They are useful toys, but they aren't actually useful for the things you use a PC for.

The reason tablet sales are so high is because people didn't have them at all, and have been caught up in the product cycle. Once it hits a certain level, the rate of replacement will become much slower, much more like the PC cycle, at which point the bottom will fall out of the market. PCs are at the point now where having a four year old PC isn't the anchor around your neck that it used to be; as time goes on, that will become increasingly true.

"But most people don't need PCs!"

Most people don't need tablets, either. If it was about need, tablets would never have lifted off. People DO need keyboards and mice for productivity purposes, and almost everyone needs to be productive sometimes - resumes and document writing both are superior using traditional computer interfaces. Thus PCs are more -useful- to the end user, regardless of what form they might take - if you attach a keyboard and mouse to your tablet for productivity purposes, then it becomes a PC if you actually have decent productivity programs for it.

Now, some will say that this will replace PCs, but I have my doubts - smart phones are cute little devices, but many people have no need for them, and they can't be as strong as a real PC, let alone for any sort of remotely sane price. Tablets, likewise, don't actually have especially awesome interfaces - among other problems, the fact that you have to put your hand in front of the screen to use them makes them significantly less awesome.

I don't think that only nerds will have desktop PCs. Of course, at present rates of automation, there may not be anything else left for most people in fourty years.

Look at the above. The "appliance" is being democratized were everyone can afford a workable amount of power. And Moore's law amongst other mean the above will get smaller, more powerful, cheaper, and more capable. Empowering the common man isn't a novelty.

The way I see the story is that Dell is one of the critical suppliers to business, and Microsoft sells the licences on the hardware that Dell sells. They want a strong Dell, to ensure stability in their own market.

There are most likely other benefits, such as your point about Surface, but mostly I think they want a strong Dell.

Microsoft is already well diversified in terms of hardware suppliers for its software. They have Dell, HP and Lenovo who serve the business market.

My question is how does this potential investment by Microsoft ensure a strong Dell? It isn't enough to get any significant control over Dell, nor is it enough to be any sort of "rescue" package--not that Dell needs one. All this does is facilitate their privatization effort.

"Investing in Dell might also cause some disquiet among Microsoft's other PC partners. Acer, in particular, has already voiced its dissatisfaction that the software giant has decided to enter the tablet market with Surface. Having a vested interest in one PC OEM in particular might be viewed in a dim light."

This part of the article seems to be attempting to artificially create drama where there is none. We are after all talking about a set of "PC Partners" that are probably all involved in making Chromebooks, Androis phones and what not. Besides which they pretty much all lack ambition: the last 2 times I was out to buy a laptop I have ended up buying a Mac and not because I love them, but the PC makers are all lemmings chasing a low end customer that doesn't value the product really, so all you get to pick from is junk and more junk, in a zillion variations.

This market is shinking from here on out. A little shakeup of the status quo is well in order.

You're coming at this with the perspective of a longtime PC user/enthusiast, which is not the right perspective to have.

The value that smartphones and tablets bring is the value of an always-on, always-there computing appliance. Tablets and smartphones are designed to fit into one's lifestyle, not vice versa. They provide a blend of convenience and versatility that you simply can't get from a traditional PC.

Certainly, there are significant applications for which tablets and smartphones are not ideal... content creation or development, premium-quality gaming, any sort of server application. But the vast majority of users are not engaging in those things, and for them the convenience of an always-there computing device is quite compelling. And why would they need a traditional PC if a tablet serves all of their needs? Especially when, like with a Windows tablet, adding a mouse and keyboard will get you a computing device every bit as capable as a traditional PC?

Besides which they pretty much all lack ambition: the last 2 times I was out to buy a laptop I have ended up buying a Mac and not because I love them, but the PC makers are all lemmings chasing a low end customer that doesn't value the product really, so all you get to pick from is junk and more junk, in a zillion variations.

Emphasis mine.

I haven't gone as far as buying a Mac, but I agree with your sentiment. The race-to-the-bottom is a losing strategy. Apple has done very well for itself by ignoring the low-end market in large part. These other companies are wasting their effort going after people that really care little about the devices they own. You get the numbers but not the margins (or mindshare!).